Thu 5 Jun 2008
My heart saddens…
Posted by Kevin under Thinking Aloud, News
My heart saddens when somebody forwarded me the open verdict made by a certain State Coroner Victor Yeo Khee Eng.
A TOP civil servant whose car hit a Victoria School student along Marine Parade Road in October last year was yesterday cleared of criminal negligence in the fatal accident.
State Coroner Victor Yeo came round to this view following testimony by several witnesses at the inquiry into the death of Secondary 4 student Wrixon Chew Teck Cheng, 16, who died six days after the accident.
The driver of the car was Ms Chin Li Fen, 48, an Assistant Commissioner of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras)
…
Coroner Yeo, returning an open verdict, said evidence suggested that Wrixon could have failed to keep a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles.”
(Source: AsiaOne)
I could not believe what I read.
Is this the same court that ruled in favour of the wife of an americian millionaire who was killed in a car accident when he deliberately violated the traffic laws?
I did some googling and found the previous case “US MILLIONAIRE IN CAR ACCIDENT AT SCOTTS ROAD, Driver ordered to pay $2m“.
THE jogger may have run right across the yellow traffic box junction outside Goodwood Park Hotel along Scotts Road and disregarded the pedestrian crossings.
Still, the Singapore driver who hit and killed him had to bear 45 per cent of the blame for the accident, the court found.
…
The traffic lights were in Madam To’s favour. She was driving past the junction of Scotts Road/Stevens Road and Draycott Drive, when he ran across the yellow box junction in front of her car.
(Source: SGForums)
It turned out that the jogger was Mr Henry Adolphus Lassiter, 48, an American self-made millionaire who had a thriving technology company and assets worth nearly $40 million at the time of his death.
Does it mean that if you are a rich millionaire, you can violate traffic laws, run across a yellow traffic box junction, get killed… yet the driver (with traffic light in her favour) had to bear 45% of the blame?
But on the other hand, when you are an average 16 yrs old student, you are 100% at blame for getting yourself killed because you have failed to keep a proper lookout for oncoming vehicles?
I don’t get the logic.
Or perhaps it’s not about you at all. It seems to me that the verdict could have depends on who you are contesting against.
My heart saddens…such is the state of X@#@#……..
How am I going to teach Talia Ann about right and wrong in this country? Should I tell her that when you see a rich man crossing the road, you MUST stop the car. When you see a commoner, just speed on, knock him down as long as the light is in your favour?
Certainly not.
As a sailor, I know that the rule of sea always state that the vessels with the higher mobility gave way to the lesser or vessel restricted in their ability to maneuver.
As a NPCC cadet, I learnt that the same rules apply. Cars should watch out and give way to motorcycles and bicycles. ALL motorised vehicles MUST watch out and give way to pedestrians.
With such court rulings, it’s not surprising that so many cyclists and pedestrians get killed by reckless drivers each year.
Something must change regarding the double standards in such verdicts.
This reminded me of what Edmund Burke said, “Evil Prevails When Good Men Do Nothing“.
We need CHANGE.
19 Responses to “ My heart saddens… ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 9 Jun 2008
June 9th, 2008 at 11:45 am[…] Daily Discourse - TOC: Transparency - more or less? - Yawning Bread: We duds at the pinnacle of evolution - The-Upperroom.com: My heart saddens.. - utopia: Singapore: an Asian country with no Asian values - The Itch to Write: Simple analogy on how tax-reduction are not helping the poor […]
-
Pingback from The World Through me » Top Iras official not to blame for fatal crash
June 12th, 2008 at 4:35 am[…] Read more about it here and here […]
-
Pingback from The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 24
June 14th, 2008 at 11:13 am[…] Daily Discourse - TOC: Transparency - more or less? - Yawning Bread: We duds at the pinnacle of evolution - The-Upperroom.com: My heart saddens.. - utopia: Singapore: an Asian country with no Asian values - The Itch to Write: Simple analogy on how tax-reduction are not helping the poor - Chia Ti Lik’s Blog: The removal of Estate Duty - Snippets from inside the Court - Under the Willow Tree: Temasek’s Hands in Too Many Pies - The Bosonic State: A Case of Similar Attractions - Endoh’s Dungeon: Singapore Government needs better HR management - Hard Hitting in the Lion City: Who is better for Singapore? - Yawning Bread: Pity that Youthquake 2 didn’t make it to the Richter scale - Readings From A Political Duo-ble: Singtel’s - Optus’ marketing ploy exposed (and a brief history of Singapore Government’s Corporations’ negative influence in the region) - TOC: Public facilities need to be improved - Simply Gab: Malaysia’s cost-cutting package: When not enough is dangerous - Mr Wang Says So: Thinking About Critical Thinking - URBANRANT: This Lee allows protests - BothSidesOfTheJohorStraits: Top-level honour in Korea; top-level shruggin-of-shoulders in S’pore - Asia Times: Clouds over Singapore’s blogosphere - The boy who knew too much: No freedom to play - A Serial Number on my Vote: Transparency versus Trust - Alice Cheong in Wonderland: Justice for a victim, but many molesters go scot-free - SingaporeSurf: What Kind Of Government Do You Want? - Darth Grievous’ Dark Domain: Storm in a Teacup - Over Endoh’s Post - Cowboy Caleb: The Difference Between A Malaysian & A Singaporean (Part 1) - SgForums: Tharman says S’pore not headed for a recession - HWZ: Survey finds Singaporeans generally happy […]




June 5th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Hi Kevin, its been a long time since u last blog!!
Thought under the highway code, pedestrian always got the right of way and cars were supposed to keep a look out for them?!
I think the judgement sucks!
June 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Just like to point out that the driver Ms Chin Li Fen LL.B. graduated from NUS law school. Friends in the right places?
http://law.nus.edu.sg/alumni/alumni_directory.asp?Year=1983
June 7th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
where’s justice?!
June 7th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
aye
June 7th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
State Coroner’s findings are not binding on Civil actions. Just because the State Coroner finds no criminal negligence doesn’t mean the civil servant cannot be found to be negligent in a civil court. The standard of proof is different in both courts. It is still open for the civil court to find the civil servant liable for damages to the boy’s parents.
In the Lassiter case, it was the Civil Court which found the driver 45% liable for damages. I believe no criminal charges were pressed against the driver in the Lassiter case as well.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Be careful when saying this kind of things on the courts. Look at what happen on CSJ…
June 8th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Justice in Singapore applies to the rich, powerful elites..
Money confers justice.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:10 am
The Coroner’s role is to determine circumstances surrounding the death. The inquest does NOT determine fault. He is not a judge.
An open verdict by the Coroner clears the way to civil claims, which are independent of the Coroner’s verdict. Of course, the Coroner’s findings can be helpful in the civil case.
June 8th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Yeah sure base your analysis of the legal system on two paragraphs from news reports without finding out what those drivers actually did. I guess you think the only relevant factors are the identities of the parties to the suit huh. Did you even bother figuring out what exactly happened in those cases? Did it occur to you that there might be factual differences beyond what the newspapers have reported? Or is that beyond you?
June 9th, 2008 at 9:34 am
welcome to the singapore!!
if you have been paying attention to the papers, the difference in treatment accorded between the rich and the poor have been pretty plain obvious for a long time now…
CSJ case is just the red flagged tip of the iceberg…
June 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
To xj
EXACTLY.
The newspaper article was SHORT because they cannot reveal too many details or the public will know it was not entirely the kids fault.
Did it mention that it was a school zone? Did it mention at what speed the woman was driving? It said the green light for pedestrian crossing was flashing… which means the light for traffic was RED, and had JUST turned GREEN when the kid was knocked down. IF the woman was moving from a standing start, the kid would NOT have been hit or even if he were, it would NOT have been fatal. This means this woman was speeding TOWARDS a traffic light and NOT even SLOWING down as it had turned from RED to GREEN. On TOP of everything, it was a school zone.
Did the judge even punish her for exceeding the speed limit? NO….
Why don’t you try hitting a kid in a school zone (make sure you kill him) and see if the judge lets you off.
You are typical of the 66% who only read the states times and believe what they say.
June 11th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Why was the report so brief, was it because the government want a cover-up?
Why did the newpaper identify the driver as a Top IRAS official?
What has this got to do with case? Is the writer/editor insinuating preferential treatment?
I do not know, and I definitely do not wish to speculate.
What I know is, something is not right with our Justice system!
June 20th, 2008 at 2:00 am
“The newspaper article was SHORT because they cannot reveal too many details or the public will know it was not entirely the kids fault.”
I guess my only grouse with this sentence is the ‘because’ after ‘SHORT’. It’s what you could call a leap of logic. Maybe the ST just didn’t bother, maybe they’re incompetent, maybe they don’t know, maybe it’s a massive government cover-up.
“IF the woman was moving from a standing start, the kid would NOT have been hit or even if he were, it would NOT have been fatal. This means this woman was speeding TOWARDS a traffic light and NOT even SLOWING down as it had turned from RED to GREEN. On TOP of everything, it was a school zone.
Did the judge even punish her for exceeding the speed limit? NO….”
The point here is not that the ST is the entire truth. The point here is that you don’t have all the facts and yet you are extrapolating based on what you think happened. Granted your version’s certainly possible, even plausible. That doesn’t make it the only explanation.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Yes. Its a sad situation.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
xj, when you’re wrong, just admit you’re wrong.. Expose XJ’s explanation made a lot more sense than your reply. In comparing these 2 cases, there is OBVIOUS INJUSTICE.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:11 am
In the Lassiter Case there were 2 eyewitnesses that contradicted one another and the guilt based on 45-55 was agreed to by the parties due to the fact one witness said Mr. Lassiter had the right away and the other said Ms. Toh did. It was not found that the driver had the green light as stated in the above Lassiter Case description and the lawyer of June 7 2008 was correct that all action arose out of the civil proceeding. This accident took place at a time of poor visibility in a 5 way intersection. Both deaths are tragic and both families are at great losses.